12 U.S.C. § 2603–Uniform Settlement Statements Under The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)

As a resource for the class action defense lawyer who defends against RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) class actions, we provide here the text of RESPA. Congress provided for the development of a uniform settlement statement in 12 U.S.C. § 2603, which provides as follows:

§ 2603. Uniform settlement statement

(a) The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of Veteran’s Affairs, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, shall develop and prescribe a standard form for the statement of settlement costs which shall be used (with such variations as may be necessary to reflect differences in legal and administrative requirements or practices in different areas of the country) as the standard real estate settlement form in all transactions in the United States which involve federally related mortgage loans. Such form shall conspicuously and clearly itemize all charges imposed upon the borrower and all charges imposed upon the seller in connection with the settlement and shall indicate whether any title insurance premium included in such charges covers or insures the lender’s interest in the property, the borrower’s interest, or both. The Secretary may, by regulation, permit the deletion from the form prescribed under this section of items which are not, under local laws or customs, applicable in any locality, except that such regulation shall require that the numerical code prescribed by the Secretary be retained in forms to be used in all localities. Nothing in this section may be construed to require that that part of the standard form which relates to the borrower’s transaction be furnished to the seller, or to require that that part of the standard form which relates to the seller be furnished to the borrower.

Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

12 U.S.C. § 2602—Definitions Of Terms Used In The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)

For class action defense attorneys who defend against RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) class actions, we provide here the text of the statute. Congress defined the relevant terms used in the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act in 12 U.S.C. § 2602, which provides:

§ 2602. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter–

(1) the term “federally related mortgage loan” includes any loan (other than temporary financing such as a construction loan) which–

(A) is secured by a first or subordinate lien on residential real property (including individual units of condominiums and cooperatives) designed principally for the occupancy of from one to four families, including any such secured loan, the proceeds of which are used to prepay or pay off an existing loan secured by the same property; and

(B)(i) is made in whole or in part by any lender the deposits or accounts of which are insured by any agency of the Federal Government, or is made in whole or in part by any lender which is regulated by any agency of the Federal Government, or

(ii) is made in whole or in part, or insured, guaranteed, supplemented, or assisted in any way, by the Secretary or any other officer or agency of the Federal Government or under or in connection with a housing or urban development program administered by the Secretary or a housing or related program administered by any other such officer or agency; or

(iii) is intended to be sold by the originating lender to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Government National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or a financial institution from which it is to be purchased by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; or

(iv) is made in whole or in part by any “creditor”, as defined in section 1602(f) of Title 15, who makes or invests in residential real estate loans aggregating more than $1,000,000 per year, except that for the purpose of this chapter, the term “creditor” does not include any agency or instrumentality of any State;

Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

DaimlerChrysler Settles Nationwide Class Action Over Allegedly Defective Brakes for $14.5 Million

DaimlerChrysler ushered in the new year by settling for $14.5 million a class action filed in New Jersey state court. The settlement of the nationwide class action reportedly won court approval on December 26, 2006, bringing to a close Lubitz v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. The class action settlement covers the more than one million people who bought or leased a Jeep Grand Cherokee between 1999 and 2004. The class action complaint alleged that the brakes on Jeep Grand Cherokees were defective, causing them to sustain uneven wear and occasionally fail.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

12 U.S.C. § 2601–Congressional Findings And Purpose For The Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)

As a resource for the class action defense lawyer who defends against RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) class actions, we provide the text of RESPA. Congress set forth its findings and purpose for RESPA in 12 U.S.C. § 2601, which provides as follows:

§ 2601. Congressional findings and purpose

(a) The Congress finds that significant reforms in the real estate settlement process are needed to insure that consumers throughout the Nation are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process and are protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices that have developed in some areas of the country. The Congress also finds that it has been over two years since the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs submitted their joint report to the Congress on “Mortgage Settlement Costs” and that the time has come for the recommendations for Federal legislative action made in that report to be implemented.

Statutes & Rules Uncategorized

TiVo Defense Attorneys Reach Tentative Settlement Agreement Of Class Action And California State Court Issues Orders Permitting Proposed Settlement To Move Forward

On December 5, 2006, a California state court provisionally certified a nationwide class action against TiVo for purposes of settlement in Nolz v. TiVo, Inc., San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-05-447918. Members of the class action consist of all persons “who purchased or held a Gift Subscription for TiVo services,” Order, at 2; the class action complaint alleged, in part, that TiVo sold gift subscriptions that contained expiration dates, in violation of California state law.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Main Drug v. Aetna-Class Action Defense Cases: Alabama Federal Court Holds That Burden Of Proving Federal Court Jurisdiction Under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Remains With Defense And That Burden Was Met

CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) did not Shift Burden of Proving Federal Jurisdiction to Plaintiff but Defense Established Requisite Amount In Controversy so Alabama Federal Court Denies Motion to Remand Class Action to State Court Plaintiff, a pharmacy, filed a putative class action against insurance/pharmacy benefit management companies for misrepresentation, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and conspiracy, alleging that defendants failed to reimburse pharmacies “according to an agreed-upon formula for brand name prescriptions dispensed to Defendants’ insureds.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

Blockbuster v. Galeno-Class Action Defense Cases: Defense Bears Burden Of Establishing Federal Court Jurisdiction Under Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Second Circuit Holds

Second Circuit Holds that CAFA (Class Action Fairness Act) did not Shift Burden of Proving Federal Jurisdiction to Plaintiff and Remands Class Action Case to District Court for Further Proceedings

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Blockbuster in New York state court challenging the company’s “No Late Fee” program as a deceptive business practice on the grounds that Blockbuster did not adequately inform customers that in order to avoid the late fees the transaction was converted from a video rental to a video sale. Blockbuster, Inc. v. Galeno, 472 F.3d 53, 2006 WL 3775326, *1 (2d Cir. 2006). Defense attorneys removed the action to federal court asserting both general diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Id., at *2. Plaintiffs moved to remand the class action to state court, arguing that the defense had not established the requisite $5 million amount-in-controversy, id.; defense attorneys countered that “CAFA had reversed the traditional rule that the party seeking removal to federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction,” id. The district court agreed with the defense, but its order denying the motion to remand the class action stated not only that “the defendant has met its burden” but also that “the plaintiff has not met [its] burden,” id. The Second Circuit held that the district court should not have assigned any burden to the plaintiff, and remanded the action for further proceedings in light of the ambiguity in the lower court’s order.

After summarizing CAFA and the appropriate standard of review of an order denying a motion to remand, Galeno, at *3, the Circuit Court addressed whether CAFA “shifted the burden of proof to the remand-requesting plaintiff to show that federal jurisdiction does not exist,” id., at *4. The Second Circuit’s analysis led it to the same conclusions reached by “[e]very other circuit court that has considered this issue,” id., at *5 – viz., that CAFA had not affected the defense burden of establishing federal court removal jurisdiction, id.

Class Action Court Decisions Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) Removal & Remand Uncategorized

California Court of Appeal Decision In Miller v. Bank of America – Handing Class Action Defense Attorneys -Becomes Final

California Court of Appeal Reports that Decision Reversing in Full Trial Court Judgment Against Bank in Class Action Case has Become Final The California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District reported on December 26, 2006 that its decision in Miller v. Bank of America, 144 Cal.App.4th 1301 (Cal.App. 2006), has become final. Miller reversed a billion dollar class action judgment against Bank of America, holding that banks may apply funds from government benefit deposits to cover overdraft fees connected with the same bank account.

Class Actions In The News Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-In re Volkswagen/Audi Warranty: Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Grants Joint Defense/Plaintiff Motion To Centralize Class Action Litigation But Selects District Of Massachusetts As Transferee Court

Judicial Panel Agrees Pretrial Coordination Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 is Warranted for Class Actions But Rejects Defense and Plaintiff Recommendations for Request for and Grants Defense Motion for Centralization of Three Class Action Lawsuits After four class action lawsuits concerning vehicle extended warranties were filed against Volkswagen in California, Florida, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, defense and plaintiffs’ attorneys filed a joint motion with the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) pursuant to 28 U.

Class Action Court Decisions Multidistrict Litigation Uncategorized

Class Action Defense Cases-Battaglia v. DirectRevenue: California Federal Court Grants Joint Defense/Plaintiff Motion For Certification Of Class Action And For Final Approval Of Class Action Settlement

California Court Holds that Proposed Class Action Settlement Warranted Court Approval and Grants Defense/Plaintiff Request to Certify Class Action for Purposes of Settlement Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against DirectRevenue and The Best Offers Network (formerly BetterInternet) arising out of targeted advertising software downloaded onto computers through ActiveX installations that did not require the affirmative consent of computer users. Battaglia v. DirectRevenue, LLC, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2006 WL 3654095 (E.

Class Action Court Decisions Uncategorized